TomTom joins patent coalition amid Microsoft patent showdown

TomTom, which is embroiled in an intellectual property dispute with Microsoft …

Portable navigation device maker TomTom announced Monday that it has joined the Open Invention Network (OIN), a coalition of companies that have established a patent-sharing plan to help protect the Linux software ecosystem from hostile patent infringement litigation. TomTom likely joined to give itself more leverage in an ongoing intellectual property dispute against Microsoft.

Microsoft filed a patent infringement lawsuit against TomTom last month, alleging that several of the company's handheld navigation products—including a few that are built on the open source Linux operating system-—infringe an assortment of Microsoft's patents. The patents in question cover navigation technologies, touchscreen interfaces, and filesystem implementations. TomTom has retaliated by filing a countersuit against Microsoft.

Microsoft's infringement claims have raised some concerns within the Linux community, because two of the patents that are cited in Microsoft's suit cover implementation details of Microsoft's FAT filesystem. The filesystem, which became entrenched despite its technical limitations because it is supported by Microsoft's operating system, is widely used on flash storage devices and other removable media. When the FAT patents were upheld in 2006 after a lengthy court battle, Software Freedom Law Center chairman Eben Moglen described them as a "proverbial Sword of Damocles hanging over the open source community" and warned that Microsoft could potentially use the patent to attack the Linux platform.

The OIN was launched in 2005 as a collective effort by IBM, Sony, Philips, Novell, Red Hat, and other major Linux stakeholders in the technology industry. The founding members contributed a collection of extremely broad patents that cover a wide range of technologies. Any company can receive royalty-free licenses for those patents by agreeing to not assert their own patents against the Linux software ecosystem. Prominent OIN licensees include Google, Oracle, and Barracuda. As a licensee, TomTom has pledged to not use its intellectual property against Linux.

"Linux plays an important role at TomTom as the core of all our Portable Navigation Devices," said TomTom IP director Peter Spours in a statement. "We believe that by becoming an Open Invention Network licensee, we encourage Linux development and foster innovation in a technical community that benefits everyone."

Although TomTom says that this move is about fostering innovation in open source software, there is clearly a lot more on the table. In addition to granting royalty-free access to its patents to licensees, the OIN can also wield its patent portfolio for defensive purposes and will use it to retaliate against litigation that is brought against Linux software by other companies. TomTom's decision to join the OIN as a licensee could potentially pave the way for a patent showdown between Microsoft and OIN over the FAT patents. At the very least, it could give TomTom more leverage in its patent negotiations with Microsoft.

Microsoft has publicly stated that its lawsuit against TomTom is not the beginning of a systematic attack on Linux. According to Microsoft, the lawsuit was filed as a last resort after lengthy negotiations with TomTom broke down. Microsoft's claim that this is an isolated incident is not viewed by the Linux community as a strong reassurance, however, in light of Microsoft's unsubstantiated claims that Linux infringes on Microsoft's patents.

The pervasiveness of the FAT format and the fact that it is widely supported by Linux-based mobile devices also make Microsoft's move a cause for concern in this case. If Microsoft does decide to follow up its lawsuit against TomTom with lawsuits against other vendors, it would have very broad ramifications. This situation could potentially end up being the first test of the OIN's defensive patent portfolio

And what if it does the opposite? and gives Microsoft even more power, Will that make you mad? Just because you might dislike Microsoft doesn't mean they should be nullified, infact i hope that nothing clears comes out of this. and TomTom has to pay like everyone else.

If the patents in question were already upheld, and other companies have been licensing it they would just be throwing useless money at it to try to win. Not to mention the fact that Novell has a agreement with Microsoft, and i think it would be stupid for them to try and clash on a patent war.

I hope this will result in a lot of Microsoft patents getting nullified.

Why target only MS- it is better for everyone if patents from MS, TomTom, IBM (the goliath of patent holders), Redhat, Novell, and others all get invalidated in a hypothetical patent throwdown. IBM may not target me for royalties if I write software for Linux, but if I write it for any other ecosystem they are going to want their pound of flesh as much as MS does.

MS isn't the problem here, it is just doing a well accepted business practice (and is a hell of a lot less predatory then they could be- they may ask for royalties but they are a far cry from the worst patent troll). We should reform the business practice rather than complain about specific companies that use it. The problem is that software patents in general inhibit rather than promote innovation- not that MS inhibits innovation. OIN is no more or less entitled to a patent portfolio than MS is.

1) They were not upheld by a court, but re-issued by the patent office: *it doesn't mean that the patent are valid*. One major thing to take into consideration is that the procedure for reinstating the patent doesn't allow for anyone to introduce prior art or arguments on the obviousness and validity of the patent. The discussion was between the patent office and Microsoft, arguments by the Public Patent Foundation were not heard. A court has might well invalidate them.

2) The US is a new patent world compared to a couple of months ago, the Bilski ruling might well mean that software patent do not mean much.

I don't quite understand how we've got people questioning the difference between Microsoft and the OIN on a tech site.

Even if you see nothing wrong with the offensive use of patents (or support it), it's pretty clear that Microsoft is using its patents to control other companies' use of technology, while the OIN's use is primarily geared toward halting lawsuits. There's a bit of an obvious difference there...

The primary purpose is to facilitate free cross licensing of patents among members- it pretty much follows the same idea as code contributions where contributors reap the benefit of all of the other contributors. The added benefit is that as an organization it can fight off attacks against linux (which is different than attacks against member organizations).

Its also important to note that MS does primarily (not exclusively though) also adopt a defensive strategy towards patents. they have 10,000 patents now- if they were of the mind to use a business model of widespread offensive patent licensing there would be a great deal more lawsuits. TomTom and MS have been in negotiations for some time over a cross licensing deal; as MS becomes and increasing large player in the PND space (WinCE has a majority install base) it opens the company up to liability over patents from competing platforms. It is there responsibility to avoid violation lawsuits so when they know they are violating a patent they need to address it. The negotiations hit a wall and MS finally pushed the issue to the courts to get it resolved. TomTom isn't some small little company getting bullied around- these are two enterprises resolving a typical cross-license dispute that enterprises often have. Do you think TomTom is entitled to reap patent royalties from MS, but not the other way around?

it's pretty clear that Microsoft is using its patents to control other companies' use of technology, while the OIN's use is primarily geared toward halting lawsuits. There's a bit of an obvious difference there...

it's pretty clear that Microsoft is using its patents to control other companies' use of technology, while the OIN's use is primarily geared toward halting lawsuits. There's a bit of an obvious difference there...

What can OIN do if some of their patents are used w/o licensing?

The exact same thing Microsoft does, ask for payment, I dont see how that differs.

Microsoft asks for 25 cents per device with a maximum of $250.000 btw, not exactly bank breaking stuff.